Moved Thread Zac Williams bump

[faible]

Except that link relates very specifically to dangerous tackles. It makes no mention of hip and shoulders, bumps or the like. A similar change may have been put into effect, but you can't come to that conclusion from the link you provided.

Yeah, so that article expressly addresses the spear or dangerous tackle and has nothing to do with this.

That wasn't the point of the link, it was to illustrate what their mindset and approach is regarding high contact, and player actions leading to high contact.

Again, the notion of 'reading the room' is just random, fluff. I am talking about the hard and fast rules and laws of the game, written in black and white. I have listed and shown why under the AFLs own guidelines on the matter, Williams should have been graded as low. Nobody has been able to challenge that with anything factual and has just gone with "it looked bad".

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2019/12/04/68a18e95-713c-4408-a269-06b2aef6db34/2019-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

If these are the current guidelines there's already scope in 4.2(B) to consider what the AFL refers to as body language;

In addition, consideration will be given to the body language of the offending Player in terms of flexing, turning, raising or positioning the body to either increase or reduce the force of impact.

Raising or positioning the body could comfortably be read to include things such as jumping and leaving the ground.

In addition, under the same clause they say the following;

Secondly, strong consideration will be given to the potential to cause injury, particularly in the following cases:
High bumps, particularly with significant head contact and/or Player momentum;

Leaving the ground could certainly be seen to have bearing on player momentum as well.

The absence of injury does not preclude the classification of impact as Severe.

Which shows that simply not failing the concussion test and being able to play out the game can't be used as evidence that it wasn't medium contact.

 

[faible]

Interesting logic. If you apply that to any game, technically speaking, ANY player who elects to bump, regardless of whether there is head contact, has the option of smothering instead and not risking injury. Therefore, we should just get rid of the bump.

You could read it that way. Which would be a dramatic position to take.

The onus is on the player choosing to bump not to make high contact. If Williams executes the bump without collecting him high or late, there's no case to answer, or even a free kick. He could also have attempted to smother, which would certainly have avoided high contact in any form, and was also more likely at that point to impact upon the play, also resulting in no free kick, and no suspension.

 

[TheKITC]

That wasn't the point of the link, it was to illustrate what their mindset and approach is regarding high contact, and player actions leading to high contact.

If these are the current guidelines there's already scope in 4.2(B) to consider what the AFL refers to as body language;

Raising or positioning the body could comfortably be read to include things such as jumping and leaving the ground.

In addition, under the same clause they say the following;

Leaving the ground could certainly be seen to have bearing on player momentum as well.

At least you have gone to some trouble of actually coming up with something factual, I have to applaud that and I do see what you mean. But don't you think that is so murky and ambiguous?

Having said that, a lot of what you say is "mindset" and "could be" and "potentially". It does nothing to refute the black and white guidelines that the AFL themselves made (posted earlier if you missed it), around exactly what constitutes level of impact. They either need to throw that out or change it, because it was not adhered to in any manner in this case and I don't see how anyone could dispute that reasonably.

Which shows that simply not failing the concussion test and being able to play out the game can't be used as evidence that it wasn't medium contact.

This point is moot, because the bumbling idiot Gleeson directly referenced that (the need for a test) as a reason that it was graded medium, because of "potential" or something something. Carlton's Barrister noted that it is mandated that a concussion test occurs after any head contact and that should not be a factor, which made the finding all the more bizarre and confusing.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

This point is moot, because the bumbling idiot Gleeson directly referenced that (the need for a test) as a reason that it was graded medium, because of "potential" or something something. Carlton's Barrister noted that it is mandated that a concussion test occurs after any head contact and that should not be a factor, which made the finding all the more bizarre and confusing.

How can anyone of sane mind allow a concussion test as evidence of the severity of a bump...
a) when it is compulsory, and
b) then not allow the results of that test?
It beggars belief.

 

[telsor]

It does nothing to refute the black and white guidelines that the AFL themselves made (posted earlier if you missed it), around exactly what constitutes level of impact.

This could be your problem.

Guidelines by definition are not 'black and white'...they guide, not dictate. They certainly aren't exact...note all the ands and ors in there.

Not to mention that the AFL/MRP has a long and well established history of using every inch of wiggle room they've given themselves. The 'look' and 'potential for damage' don't get a mention, but they both clearly sway the decision making, as they have for years. This is hardly new ground.

 

[BF Tiger]

You've just totally exposed what type of poster you are by resorting to pathetic and childish name calling because you cannot deal with someone logically and reasonably disagreeing with you. Not going to report this post so it stays up and people can see it.

Last time I'll respond for obvious reasons

Thank God... he’s stopped.

 

[TheKITC]

This could be your problem.

Guidelines by definition are not 'black and white'...they guide, not dictate. They certainly aren't exact...note all the ands and ors in there.

Not to mention that the AFL/MRP has a long and well established history of using every inch of wiggle room they've given themselves. The 'look' and 'potential for damage' don't get a mention, but they both clearly sway the decision making, as they have for years. This is hardly new ground.

I get what you're saying, but that's a semantics game. Why have them be so definitive and literal if you are going to blatantly ignore them? Why have them in the first place? These guidelines are exact. It's near impossible to deny their definition of what constitutes low impact is extremely applicable to Williams-Clark.

BTW, by definition: A guideline is a statement by which to determine a course of action.... Guidelines may be issued by and used by any organization (governmental or private) to make the actions of its employees or divisions more predictable, and presumably of higher quality $). A guideline is similar to a rule.

Couldn't agree more that the MRO/tribunal strive to give themselves 'wiggle room' and operate in the grey areas, it's how they can contrive results to suit whatever it is the AFL desires in particular instances. It's neither consistent nor desirable IMO.

 

[telsor]

I get what you're saying, but that's a semantics game. Why have them be so definitive and literal if you are going to blatantly ignore them? Why have them in the first place? These guidelines are exact. It's near impossible to deny their definition of what constitutes low impact is extremely applicable to Williams-Clark.

BTW, by definition: A guideline is a statement by which to determine a course of action.... Guidelines may be issued by and used by any organization (governmental or private) to make the actions of its employees or divisions more predictable, and presumably of higher quality $). A guideline is similar to a rule.

Couldn't agree more that the MRO/tribunal strive to give themselves 'wiggle room' and operate in the grey areas, it's how they can contrive results to suit whatever it is the AFL desires in particular instances. It's neither consistent nor desirable IMO.

I would say that having flexibility is desirable, if used well. (as to if it's used well, that's another matter).

There are always going to be degrees within the categories. If something is barely within the top of every group, a little wiggle room and discretion allows it to be pushed up a grade, while something that barely meets all the criteria can be downgraded.

Human interactions and contact can't realistically be strictly categorised as a numerical model. You'd need thousands of categories, and would probably still miss some. There will always be gray areas.

 

[Bjchan13]

I would say that having flexibility is desirable, if used well. (as to if it's used well, that's another matter).

There are always going to be degrees within the categories. If something is barely within the top of every group, a little wiggle room and discretion allows it to be pushed up a grade, while something that barely meets all the criteria can be downgraded.

Human interactions and contact can't realistically be strictly categorised as a numerical model. You'd need thousands of categories, and would probably still miss some. There will always be gray areas.

You wouldn't need thousands of categories to fix up the current system. A few tweaks here and there could easily be done in an off season and clubs can be notified before the new season starts. Theres plenty of room for improvement. There always has been but same shit system gets rolled out every year.

 

[telsor]

You wouldn't need thousands of categories to fix up the current system. A few tweaks here and there could easily be done in an off season and clubs can be notified before the new season starts. Theres plenty of room for improvement. There always has been but same sh*t system gets rolled out every year.

Would you say a ruckman trying to tackle a short guy and catching him high, and a guy jumping with his arm tucked in into someone's head are equal cases of 'high'?

What about a backman punching at the ball and 'clumsily' (wink wink) hitting the forward in that back of the head?

All the same and equal? If the target gets knocked down but gets up fairly soon, would you consider them all the same?

 

[Bjchan13]

Would you say a ruckman trying to tackle a short guy and catching him high, and a guy jumping with his arm tucked in into someone's head are equal cases of 'high'?

What about a backman punching at the ball and 'clumsily' (wink wink) hitting the forward in that back of the head?

All the same and equal? If the target gets knocked down but gets up fairly soon, would you consider them all the same?

Even though you asked 4 questions i think you are trying to ask 1.

Do I think a ruckmen catching a short player high in a tackle, a guy jumping and bumping someone in the head, and a backman clumsily hitting someone in the head while punching the ball are all the same and equal?

The answer is no.

 

[Munga]

The ball had barely left his foot. It's not like it was massively late.
"run through Clark's head". Leave the hyperbole out. Watch the gif in the OP. It was a glancing blow at best, fractionally late, with the elbow tucked and shoulder making incidental contact. It was borderline between a fine and a week. Clark played on (well) and the medical staff didn't deem it bad enough to give him a concussion test at the time. Precedents have also shown that similar incidents have attracted fines. It's hardly a stretch that some people don't agree.
Ultimately, it was probably his decision to jump combined with the late concussion test that cost him the week.

I'm not going to argue too long with a one-eyed.
Glacing blow? Factually incorrect.
Fractionally late? If you've played the game you'll know that Williams had the time NOT to bump, but he still jumped in after the kick.
Precendents have also shown softer bumps receiving more weeks. He's lucky he only got a week, I assume for a good record.
And I don't think it was so much him jumping, nor the concussion test that cost him, just the fact that he chose to bump and got him in the head with potential to do damage. That's the line the AFL has been going with for a while now.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

I'm not going to argue too long with a one-eyed.
Glacing blow? Factually incorrect.
Fractionally late? If you've played the game you'll know that Williams had the time NOT to bump, but he still jumped in after the kick.
Precendents have also shown softer bumps receiving more weeks. He's lucky he only got a week, I assume for a good record.
And I don't think it was so much him jumping, nor the concussion test that cost him, just the fact that he chose to bump and got him in the head with potential to do damage. That's the line the AFL has been going with for a while now.


View attachment 1074653

That’s all fair enough but the AFL need to show that in their guidelines if they’re going to adjudicate that way. Otherwise it’s a shit show. That may be medium impact to you and me but according to the rules they have set it is not.

 

[TheKITC]

I would say that having flexibility is desirable, if used well. (as to if it's used well, that's another matter).

I would say a degree of flexibility perhaps is desirable, but you also want people (especially key stakeholders) to be able to understand clearly what can and cannot be done. Too much flexibility and ambiguity leads to frustration and confusion and the MRO/tribunal's inconsistency is infuriating. Do you agree that the AFL often manufactures results based on optics and the 'temperature' at the time of public/media sentiment?

There are always going to be degrees within the categories. If something is barely within the top of every group, a little wiggle room and discretion allows it to be pushed up a grade, while something that barely meets all the criteria can be downgraded.

Human interactions and contact can't realistically be strictly categorised as a numerical model. You'd need thousands of categories, and would probably still miss some. There will always be gray areas.

I don't agree there would need to be thousands, but I ask again; Why have guidelines be so definitive and literal if you are going to blatantly ignore them? Why have them in the first place? Why have them worded where an exact scenario reads like it should be one thing, then go against that? Do you concur that in the guidelines posted, Williams-Clark reads like a textbook low impact, taking out sentiment and/or opinion?

I totally agree Williams deserved a week. I just think probably the correct outcome was met by the completely wrong method, which is extremely problematic and it opens up a myriad of issues when other similar instances are adjudged differently. They either need to re-write their own rules and guidelines or just throw them out and then let everyone know that there is scope for extraordinary decisions to be upgraded/downgraded based on 'grey area' factors where contact with the head is made.

 

[faible]

But don't you think that is so murky and ambiguous?

Yes, though I think the grey area is necessary given how many variables are involved. A simple black & white rule isn't really appropriate for the number of different scenarios that can unfold in the course of play, so guidelines are the best we can do, along with consistency from the people implementing those guidelines from week-to-week, with the understand that season-to-season this can change with new information.

Particularly given the CTE diagnoses of Tuck & Frawley, the guidelines were always going to be interpreted in the most conservative fashion to protect the head of players.

(posted earlier if you missed it)

I had a quick flick back about 3 pages and this is the only one I came across, which is unreferenced so I've got no idea where it came from. The link I posted was the only official document I could find when I looked online, so it's quite likely there's other stuff out there I didn't find.

This point is moot, because the bumbling idiot Gleeson directly referenced that (the need for a test) as a reason that it was graded medium, because of "potential" or something something.

I disagree here, if a test is necessary because the player appears to have sustained an impact likely to result in concussion, or is dazed, then not-failing the test shouldn't be used as an automatic excuse to downgrade the severity of impact.

Carlton's Barrister noted that it is mandated that a concussion test occurs after any head contact and that should not be a factor, which made the finding all the more bizarre and confusing.

I do agree here, it's a non-sensical situation if the test is mandated to occur after any high contact that requiring the test is therefore evidence of a higher level of impact, it's circular logic. I don't know the exact requirements though, if it's any high contact or if it's only high contact that appears to be higher impact, and/or high contact resulting in the player being dazed (which Clark did appear to be imo).

 

[telsor]

Why have guidelines be so definitive and literal if you are going to blatantly ignore them?

Firstly, as guidelines, they are not definitive and literal.

Guideline
noun
plural noun: guidelines

1. a general rule, principle, or piece of advice.

Note *general* Not specific.



Also, they don't blatantly ignore them. Just because you don't agree with an interpretation doesn't mean they blatantly ignored it.

 

[Sector 7G]

The incident should be graded as intentional rather than careless. Late, chose to leave the ground to bump and could have avoided contact.

Impact is clearly low under the guidelines.

Would have delivered the same end result of 1 week.

 

[faible]

The incident should be graded as intentional rather than careless. Late, chose to leave the ground to bump and could have avoided contact.

Impact is clearly low under the guidelines.

Would have delivered the same end result of 1 week.

Intentional would mean he was deliberately aiming for the head, e.g. takes a swing at the guy. Careless is the correct grading for that action.

If high contact occurs as part of an unavoidable sequence of events, it gets thrown out entirely.

 

[Sector 7G]

Intentional would mean he was deliberately aiming for the head, e.g. takes a swing at the guy. Careless is the correct grading for that action.

If high contact occurs as part of an unavoidable sequence of events, it gets thrown out entirely.

Doesn't running from the side and jumping off the ground make contact to the head inevitable? He made a decision he didn't need to.

Instead the AFL increased the rating on the impact based on what could have happened because he jumped off the ground

 

[faible]

Doesn't running from the side and jumping off the ground make contact to the head inevitable? He made a decision he didn't need to.

Not necessarily inevitable, plenty of times players leave the ground and make a fair bump to the body. In this case he didn't, and caught Clark high.

Yes he made the decision to jump, but I can't see how you can argue he intentionally lined the head up. In which care we end up at Careless.

Instead the AFL increased the rating on the impact based on what could have happened because he jumped off the ground

That's how they've done it for a while now, it's the potential to cause serious injury guideline.

 

[Hawk_francais]

I totally agree Williams deserved a week. I just think probably the correct outcome was met by the completely wrong method, which is extremely problematic and it opens up a myriad of issues when other similar instances are adjudged differently. They either need to re-write their own rules and guidelines or just throw them out and then let everyone know that there is scope for extraordinary decisions to be upgraded/downgraded based on 'grey area' factors where contact with the head is made.

I've never seen somebody argue so vehemently with a decision they agree with.

The only important question is whether the MRO has the power to arrive at proportional sanctions for on-field transgressions, because in the past the criteria have either lacked nuance, or we've seen convenient excuses made for star players. This case is evidence of neither, as the sanction was fair. Time to move on.

 

[HairyO]

So you're saying a punch that shatters some ones jaw should get the same punishment an identical punch that glances off the victim without doing much damage, but COULD have shattered his jaw?

That's my concern with punishment for potential injury.

Again, dont get me wrong. I've been saying all thread its Rough conduct, High, Careless and either Low or Medium impact.

According to the rules, that's either a fine (low) or a week (medium).

Hodge 2 weeks for bumping Wingard in to a behind post.
Hodge 3 weeks for forearming Ziebel.
Lewis 2 weeks for striking Goldstein.

All of them took the free kick. Played out thegame. No failed concussion test. No missed weeks. All of them graded higher due to potential to cause injury.

Were you as opposed to the higher grading then? Maybe you were but I recall most of BF demanding 6 weeks or more for each of them.

BTWI believe these were the only 3 cases of the potential rule over a 2 or 3 year period.

In other news, it should have been graded intentional not careless. Because he left the ground. How was he doinganything other than bumping high.

So it should have been 2 weeks not 1.

 

[theyellowsash]

Intentional would mean he was deliberately aiming for the head, e.g. takes a swing at the guy. Careless is the correct grading for that action.

If high contact occurs as part of an unavoidable sequence of events, it gets thrown out entirely.

You cant compare a punch to a bump, they're completely different things.

Williams chose to deliberately bump the stkilda player, which makes it an Intentional act. A careless bump is the kind where a player is chasing a ball or pack with arms out and slams into a player who's down for the ball.

 

[faible]

they're completely different things.

Yes.

which makes it an Intentional act

No.

A careless bump is the kind where a player is chasing a ball or pack with arms out

No. This one doesn't even go to the tribunal.

 

[theyellowsash]

Yes.



No.



No. This one doesn't even go to the tribunal.

So you're saying it was an accidental bump?